Chuck wrote
>
> What Ken said. I think both of the HDR shots look terribly unnatural. The
> middle exposure has a proper looking sky (probably correct from your
> meter) which looks nothing like the sky in the HDR shots. I suspect your
> sensor has enough shadow recovery ooomph in the raw files to lighten the
> shadows just enough to look natural in the way the eye perceives it. Both
> HDR files have unnaturally bright shadows. The Photomatix is darker and
> closer to reality but still too bright. The shadows need something between
> the PhotoMatix and the middle exposure.
>From what I have seen from many HDR shots, I had assumed that the
purpose of HDR is not to mimic reality, but to construct a set of illuminations
that viewers find more attractive, more acceptable, more interesting, more
informative - than the 'original" shot. I have in mind one of Adam Bolt's early
HDR shots of a Queensland lighthouse which turned out multicoloured ( but
nice, if exaggerated), and one from a local photographer, Geoff Cloake,
whose image of a beech tree in a valley in the morning sun actually showed
the shadow areas more brightly illuminated than some of the directly lit
vegetation.
Brian Swale
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|